What is the meaning of k in E(k) diagram?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nemanja989
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Diagram
Nemanja989
Messages
78
Reaction score
2
hello :) ,

like I said in the title of this topic I am confused about physical interpretation of physical quantity ˝k˝. I came to this problem while doing the first chapter of book in semiconductor physics, where authors simply define some value (parameter) ˝k˝ thanks to solution of some equation, but they didn't give any meaning for ˝k˝. Only what they said is that ˝k˝ can be real or complex.

First I thought it can be understood through wavelength of electron (particle), but since it can be complex I'm not sure. Perhaps only Re{k} corresponds to wavelength?..

So, if anybody can help, please be my guest :)..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
k is the wavenumber, or more importantly, related to the momentum (crystal momentum) in the E(k) dispersion diagram.

p=hbar*k

Zz.
 
Ok, thanks :) .

Just to ask one more thing. I'm not so sure what energy we are talking about when we say E(k)? Is it kinetic energy or potential or maybe whole energy of electron (Ek+U)?
I suppose that it is kinetic part since it is related to the momentum of electron..
 
It's kinetic energy.

Zz.
 
E(k)=(hbar*k)^2/(2m)+Vo

In the E(k) diagrams (dispertion curve) E can be considered as the kinetic energy only, but the zero energy value corresponds to the potential energy Vo, so, it's not actually zero.
 
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...
Back
Top